bluchez wrote:If your numbers are accurate, it more likely supports that cheating is not happening. We know woot looks into these things, and noone would risk that losing that kind of money regardless of ethics.
Losing? Keep in mind that every derby win a hypothetical cheater gets would go to SOMEONE. So woot doesn't lose there, someone's gettin them a grand. For a shirt to stay in the reckoning, it has to sell so many shirts a week. Sometimes that's 100, sometimes 150. It's been way too long since I gave a flying f to even keep track. And so this artist gets 2 bucks a sale from woot. After woot gets 15. Now, you don't *really* think woot sells shirts at a loss on a regular day, right? So woot makes money on those shirts too. And it's in their interest to let someone who might game the system a bit (but ultimately sell more) game it, because more sales=more woot bucks.
I'm not saying woot does this. I'm not saying ANY artist at woot does this. I'm just saying it wouldn't monetarily hurt woot to do this, and to them it doesn't matter who ultimately wins. If that makes sense.
Now...there's no doubt that last minute purchases have been made to certain tees to keep them on the Reckoning. However, there isn't anything dishonest about that
I think MJ said this. I'm being lazy. Oops.
ANyway, in response to this - there's a difference between showing up at 1150 whatevertime woot is in and buying 3 (or getting friends/family to) and initiating purchases, but only finishing those needed to boost the sales. I think people would agree that this behavior is gaming woot's system, and while some might not consider it outright cheating, it's dishonest and I (and I imagine others as well) find it extremely unethical. IF anyone is doing it. Again, I will not accuse anyone of doing so.
oh, so all i need is 50 corrupt friends sitting around waiting to do anything i tell them to? damn...this means i have to meet new people...
Megsck, in response to what you said - many popular artists have followings outside woot (who may or may not also participate here. I've certainly seen "unpopular on the forum" artists have rabid defenders, and other times seen popular artists go undefended, so both seem to occur. But I digress). It's quite easy to post a link to a design and say "here's mah shirt, go vote" - no one needs to know them, per se. There was a recent incident on xbox live arcade sales where the fans of some game not only upvoted (in star ratings, to imply higher or lower quality games) their game of choice, but also downvoted any nearby competitors. The publishers/programmers of the game didn't encourage this. THe fans did this on their own.
What I'm getting at is, rabid fanbases exist on the internet. Any artist could encourage this sort of behavior. By the same token, such behavior could occur independent of the artist. I have two woot accounts (I had maxed my color rating on this one before they changed and started a second to max that. Pointless, but eh). With the amount of woots I have, I could easily have more. And that's me not trying. With someone who was making an effort, someone who was a dedicated fan, determined to keep their favorite artist rolling in wins and non-reckoned shirts, it would be simple to make an account a week, or even month.
Again, I'm not saying anyone here did it, just responding to your skepticism.
Also, Travis was here long before Ramy, wasn't he? I'm not gonna go too deep into complaints about specific artists or why i think the numbers are the way they are (although let's be fair, 2 prints isn't a significant margin). As for percentage, tgentry has half the percentage of prints that patrick does (close enough) and ramy isn't really that far behind. There are other factors too, but like I said, don't really care about specific artists (well, it's more i'm too damn tired to deal with real numbers and stats)
Teal deer version - cheating is possible. Gaming the system is possible. Both suck, and either or both could account for certain patterns seen on woot. But no one can prove that either behavior happens, just point out that these behaviors fit situations seen here well.
(man my short version of this is long. Ok post over)